[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Neil Williams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 7:54 pm, Nick Kew wrote: > > > >Most certianly - 56k is unbearable! > > > > Nope, I can bear it. No choice in the matter. > > > > Why is it they provide roads to everywhere at vast expense and free > > at the point of use, but can't do the same with our IT infrastracture, > > at a tiny fraction of the cost, environmental damage, etc? > > Shush! Do you want them to tax IT like they tax motoring???? Good idea. That'll make it a great deal cheaper. Let's see now ... if road deaths were costed the same as rail deaths, the average motor insurance would be nearer £30K than £20K per year (which is of course why our railways can't compete, btw). OTOH, IT deaths would still be £0 (direct kill in all cases). Look at environmental costs, harder to quantify but you get a similar picture. Not to mention the social costs of degrading life without a car, so that the poorer folks (AIUI over 30% of adults in the census) get screwed more than ever. > With roads, slow and laborious methods like walking and cycling are free but > hazardous to health. Faster and more efficient methods are taxed. Cycling is the most efficient method of transporting people. But the IT infrastructure brings us virtual commuting, and the virtual workplace. > No-one wants the same for IT. IT hasn't destroyed communities, made it impossible for local shops, schools, postoffices, etc to compete. But then it hasn't had the kind of massive subsidy they give to motorists. I'd be very happy if they took away the road from here and gave us broadband instead. -- Nick Kew -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.